An oldie but goodie with Aubrey de Gray. While he has had better and more technical interviews introducing the SENS methodology, I found his take on the extent of LE expected with CR while not entirely novel, interesting, and worth sharing:
Besides his usual commentary that as we move from lower organisms to higher and longer-lived organisms the benefit of CR empirically has been shown to decline, as we may expect from evolutionary arguments pertaining to the duration of famines as a proportion of an organism's lifespan and reproduction, he emphasized a couple of memorable statistics -( I know this is not new to old-timer CR's, but interesting to hear directly from Aubrey ) --:
1) The lack of survival benefit in NIA monkey trial versus 5% life extension in @ U Wisc , arguing that the benefit is likely somewhere in between because the controls had unusually good diets versus unhealthy SAD respectively for the two trials. The argument is not new, but a reminder of about what percent life extension was suggested in the U Wisc group.
Personally I find the health improvements in both trials most compelling ( quality of life improvement as opposed to profound and dramatic life extension).
2) Natural caloric restriction example - Okinawa Japan. Though often cited "triple" rate of centenarians, he points out that on average this translates to only about 2 year increased survival.
This appears to be on the generous side in some respects given the table here: http://okicent.org/( life expectancy 81.2 in Okinawa vs 79.9 in the rest of Japan which is healthy on average but was not calorically restricted). Of course if comparing to a less healthy society the benefit looks better, but geroscientists would appropriately see these as unfair controls if we are discussing true CR.
Regarding the centenarians we frequently discuss here, it looked to be around 50/100,000 or about half a percent: http://okicent.org/cent.html ... also, for gentlemen in the crowd, 90% of them were women.
The US statistics have come up since then at about 2.2/10,000 as of around 2015:
In the U.S., 80% are women: https://www.reuters....t-idUSKCN0UZ2IR
I seem to remember Peter Attia recently quoting around 0.4% of the population, but this sounds too generous and I suspect it its a conditional probability taking out infant mortality / younger deaths or another sort of contingent or conditional probability
....whilst sadly a new generation of Okinawans with Westernized diet on a trajectory for far below rather than well above average outcomes.
Following the interview, Geoffrey Woo tries to make the case that captivity could have limited the lifespan in the CR group; AdG countered previously that you would need to have a compelling reason to expect the experimental group to be affected more by this than the controls.
Some of these were discussed around 24:10 in part 1 and continue to part 2.
Also interesting, sometimes i forget that our very own Michael Rae here is a celebrity of sorts:
Co-authored Ending Aging with Aubrey, etc.
( consider donating to SENS ( http://www.sens.org/donate), crsociety, etc.)
I was a little surprised to hear the reference in part II @ 23:15
[ in reference to interviewing Michael Rae he states ] "We'll have him on soon" -- alas I was disappointed on searching following this 2016 interview I could not find the follow-up interview.
Michael, any prospects for recent interviews with you @ HVMN / "Thinking Podcast or on other podcasts or lectures?
PS - may throw you off: the podcast changed names from HVMN to the Thinking Podcast between parts. HVMN is still the company name.
Edited by Mechanism, 16 June 2018 - 08:30 PM.